As Heard on The Stephanie Miller Show

Friday, November 30, 2007

Evel Knievel Dies at 69

By MITCH STACY – 47 minutes ago

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) — Evel Knievel, the hard-living motorcycle daredevil whose exploits made him an international icon in the 1970s, died Friday. He was 69.

Knievel's death was confirmed by his granddaughter, Krysten Knievel. He had been in failing health for years, suffering from diabetes and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an incurable condition that scarred his lungs.

Knievel had undergone a liver transplant in 1999 after nearly dying of hepatitis C, likely contracted through a blood transfusion after one of his bone-shattering spills.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Max Blumenthal's latest takes us on a shocking and at times bizarre tour of right-wing Pastor John Hagee's annual Washington-Israel Summit, blowing the cover off the Christian Zionist movement in the process. Starring Joe Lieberman, Tom DeLay, Pastor John Hagee, Ambassador Dore Gold and a host of rapture-ready evangelicals praying for Armaggedon

Please understand that people of this mindset are controlling George W. Bush.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Before you play this, I need to let you know that I was.....and still am....very angry when I did this....it shows.

I am sick and tired of every time somebody wants a raise in the country, in an industry that effects my life in some way shape or form, we........I.......wind up as low man on the totem pole.

SO basically I let everyone have it, and if certain words offend you, you may not want to hear. But basically, the question I want to pose to the various nudniks involved in all sides of the latest "job action..."......do you realize WHO pays your salaries?????

Monday, November 05, 2007

WASHINGTON — During recent Senate confirmation hearings for Michael Mukasey, President George W. Bush’s nominee to fill the vacant U.S. Attorney General position, Mukasey said that if he is confirmed, he will reevaluate the Justice Department’s obscenity law enforcement strategy.Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT, raised the topic of adult entertainment, asserting that the Justice Department has in recent years compiled a “terrible record enforcing adult obscenity law.” Saying that “pornography and obscenity consumption harms individuals, families [and] communities,” Hatch asserted that the Justice Department in recent years had prosecuted “too narrow a range of obscenity.”

In his response, Mukasey appeared to agree with Hatch’s assessment, saying “I recognize that mainstream materials can have an effect of cheapening a society, objectifying women, and endangering children in a way that we can’t tolerate,” and promised to review the Justice Department’s current policy of prosecuting only “extreme” materials.

Asked for his reaction to Mukasey’s statement, Jeffrey Douglas, chairman of the Free Speech Coalition, told XBIZ that he was not worried that a major shift in obscenity prosecution strategy would take place at the Justice Department if Mukasey is confirmed.

“Frankly, that concerns me not one little bit,” Douglas said. “For any candidate looking to fill that position [Attorney General], this would be a typical response. Janet Reno might have said something very similar — it doesn’t mean that they have any intention of actually changing their prosecutorial strategy.”

Douglas noted that in the recent Five Star/JM Productions obscenity case, the jury ultimately convicted on only a single DVD out of the four in the indictment, even though much of the evidence showing that similar materials frequently were consumed in the relevant community was disallowed.

“When juries already are refusing to convict on material that can be described as ‘extreme,’ it seems naïve to believe that a future jury would turn around and convict on standard, run-of-the-mill hardcore,” Douglas said.http://www.xbiz.com/news/legal/85953

Is pornography a catalyst of sexual violence?Recent research suggests that the oppose is trueSteve Chapman November 5, 2007

In the 1980s, conservatives and feminists joined to fight a common nemesis: the spread of pornography. Unlike past campaigns to stamp out smut, this one was based not only on morality but also public safety. They argued that hard-core erotica was intolerable because it promoted sexual violence against women."

Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice," wrote feminist author Robin Morgan. In 1986, a federal commission concurred. Some kinds of pornography, it concluded, are bound to lead to "increased sexual violence." Indianapolis passed a law allowing women to sue producers for sexual assaults caused by material depicting women in "positions of servility or submission or display."

The campaign fizzled when the courts said the ordinance was an unconstitutional form of "thought control." Though the Bush administration has put new emphasis on prosecuting obscenity, on the grounds that it fosters violence against women, pornography is more available now than ever.That's due in substantial part to the rise of the Internet, where the United States alone has a staggering 244 million Web pages featuring erotic fare.

One Nielsen survey found that one out of every four users say they visited adult sites in the last month.So in the last two decades, we have conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material. If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault.

But all the evidence indicates they were wrong.

As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.This is part of a broad decrease in criminal mayhem. Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. Even in the last two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.

Nor can the decline be dismissed as the result of underreporting. Many sexual assaults do go unreported, but there is no reason to think there is less reporting today than in the past. In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be.

No one would say the current level of violence against women is acceptable. But the enormous progress in recent years is one of the most gratifying successes imaginable.How can it be explained? Perhaps the most surprising and controversial account comes from Clemson University economist Todd Kendall, who suggests that adult fare on the Internet may essentially inoculate against sexual assaults.

In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use

What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape -- and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.That, of course, is only a theory, and the evidence he cites is not conclusive. States that were quicker to adopt the Internet may be different in ways that also serve to prevent rape. It's not hard to think of other explanations why sexual assaults have diminished so rapidly -- such as DNA analysis, which has been an invaluable tool in catching and convicting offenders.

Changing social attitudes doubtless have also played a role. Both young men and young women are more aware today of the boundaries between consensual and coercive sex. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, thinks the credit for progress against rape should go to federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act and to education efforts stressing that "no means no."But if expanding the availability of hard-core fare doesn't prevent rapes, we can be confident from the experience of recent years that it certainly doesn't cause such crimes. Whether you think porn is a constitutionally protected form of expression or a vile blight that should be eradicated, this discovery should come as very good news.

Is pornography a catalyst of sexual violence?Recent research suggests that the oppose is trueSteve Chapman November 5, 2007

In the 1980s, conservatives and feminists joined to fight a common nemesis: the spread of pornography. Unlike past campaigns to stamp out smut, this one was based not only on morality but also public safety. They argued that hard-core erotica was intolerable because it promoted sexual violence against women."

Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice," wrote feminist author Robin Morgan. In 1986, a federal commission concurred. Some kinds of pornography, it concluded, are bound to lead to "increased sexual violence." Indianapolis passed a law allowing women to sue producers for sexual assaults caused by material depicting women in "positions of servility or submission or display."

The campaign fizzled when the courts said the ordinance was an unconstitutional form of "thought control." Though the Bush administration has put new emphasis on prosecuting obscenity, on the grounds that it fosters violence against women, pornography is more available now than ever.That's due in substantial part to the rise of the Internet, where the United States alone has a staggering 244 million Web pages featuring erotic fare.

One Nielsen survey found that one out of every four users say they visited adult sites in the last month.So in the last two decades, we have conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material. If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault.

But all the evidence indicates they were wrong.

As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.This is part of a broad decrease in criminal mayhem. Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. Even in the last two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.

Nor can the decline be dismissed as the result of underreporting. Many sexual assaults do go unreported, but there is no reason to think there is less reporting today than in the past. In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be.

No one would say the current level of violence against women is acceptable. But the enormous progress in recent years is one of the most gratifying successes imaginable.How can it be explained? Perhaps the most surprising and controversial account comes from Clemson University economist Todd Kendall, who suggests that adult fare on the Internet may essentially inoculate against sexual assaults.

In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use

What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape -- and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.That, of course, is only a theory, and the evidence he cites is not conclusive. States that were quicker to adopt the Internet may be different in ways that also serve to prevent rape. It's not hard to think of other explanations why sexual assaults have diminished so rapidly -- such as DNA analysis, which has been an invaluable tool in catching and convicting offenders.

Changing social attitudes doubtless have also played a role. Both young men and young women are more aware today of the boundaries between consensual and coercive sex. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, thinks the credit for progress against rape should go to federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act and to education efforts stressing that "no means no."But if expanding the availability of hard-core fare doesn't prevent rapes, we can be confident from the experience of recent years that it certainly doesn't cause such crimes. Whether you think porn is a constitutionally protected form of expression or a vile blight that should be eradicated, this discovery should come as very good news.

Well, as more enlightened views of relationships come forth, there will always be people who insist on maintaining the failed status quo. Once such persoon seems to be Margo Howard.

Ms. Howard writes an advice column, published in daily newspapers and on Yahoo!. This morning, one of the people wanting advice was a woman who is in a happy polyamorous relationship.

Poor woman should have know better than to ask advice from a mainstreamer stuck in the middle of last millenium.

Read on:

Kind of Like Unofficial PolygamyMargo HowardThu Nov 1,2:00 AM ET

DEAR MARGO: I am a very happily married woman with a problem:well-intentioned friends and family. My husband and I are polyamorous and notashamed of it. We have wonderful girlfriends who are special and a part of ourfamily. The problem is that people assume we are on the verge of divorce, etc.Other than an indelicate "Butt out," is there any way to get them to see that weare really happy and stable? We've been married for five years.--- HAPPILYPOLY

(For square readers like me who might need a trip to the dictionary, I will save you some time. "Polyamorous" is the name for multiple sexual relationships within marriage -- in this case involving both spouses.)

Maybe Margo should have gone to a dictionary....or better yet, found the alt.polyamory FAQ which has a more descriptive defintion of poly:

Polyamory means "loving more than one". This love may be sexual,emotional, spiritual, or any combination thereof, according to the desires andagreements of the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out tryingto figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or filial piety, or a passionfor the Saint Paul Saints baseball club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as adescriptive term by people who are open to more than one relationship even ifthey are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are involved inless than one.) Some people think the definition is a bit loose, but it's got tobe fairly roomy to fit the wide range of poly arrangements out there.

Anyway, Ms Howard con-TIN-uuuues........

DEAR HAP: You may not be ashamed of it, but you have to know that thisarrangement would strike most people as being somewhere between odd and morallywrong, it being quite far from the norm. I am not sure why you felt the need tobreeze it around that you and your husband have "wonderful girlfriends."Because you have, however, essentially invited people to "butt in," you area little bit stuck in terms of asking them to butt out. I guess the only way toprove yourselves happy and stable is for you two to continue to thrive withyour, uh, wonderful girlfriends.--- MARGO, BEWILDEREDLY

DEAR BELWILDERED: Thanks for the backhanded salute to these nice people who have found a way to be happy outside of the constricted norms of society. My concern is that they thought they were speaking with someone with an open mind and heart, not someone who seem quick t o judge but held back because they seem...parish the thought....happy.

How many people in traditional relationships can truly say they are happy? Considering that the divorce rate in this country continutes to hover around 50%, one would think not.

Maybe, Ms. Howard, you should check out your facts before judgment, and truly wish these folks well...without the sneer.